If we can have Obamanation. We can have a mormon!
Be afraid Esten, BE VERY AFRAID! Tick Tick Tick. Go Mitt Romney in 2012! It's a done deal. Just remember who told ya first buddy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. It doesn't matter who the VP nomination will be. VP's just pick the music for the dance on Saturday night. LOL!
Democracy in Egypt (you can thank your Supreme Leader, George W. Bush)
Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right!
Didn't George W. And (Carl Rove) way back when, preached to us about the Administration´s ¨Freedon Agenda?" (invading Iraq)
And I quote,"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." (George W.)
Well, for all the these "patriots" out there, this is exactly what happened in Egypt. But wait, I know who so famously said,"He's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****."
Freedon rang and so be it. How on earth can we as a nation preach freedom and liberty for all, when at the same time we try to slant the elections in the direction of what we want? Brothers, we can't have it both ways.
Grant it, there are some risks. But this comes with the territory of preaching free elections. We will have to see how this turns out.
No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya. We all know his involvement with the Pan Am airline bombing, Lockerbie.
I don'see anyone from our "patriot" nation complain since he is in our fight against terror organizations. (he is doing this to protect his iron rule, his survival, let's not forget) Again, he's a son of a *****, but at least he's our son of a *****. Right?
As for Wallyeye's ever apolyctic view of the world, I would not be surprised if he follows Glenn Beck's doctrine of: "Store food. Buy guns." What is this far right obsession with guns anyway?
And as for me, for all in this forum who might think I address my friends with the word "Comrade." Please note that I don't have to wear an American flag lapel pin on my suit jacket to know that I love my country, warts and all.
There is the basis for your lie
[QUOTE=Esten;415678]It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too.[/QUOTE]Clearly the chance was there for me. It is still there for me and everyone else who AVAILS themselves of it. The fact that I got ahead in no way harmed the chances for those 'behind' me. However, one has to actually do something to avail oneself of it.
The truth is something else. We are all friends here, feel free to let us know what it is.
Egypt's quest for Democracy
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;
Just a few, small incidental risks like subjugating 80 million people and control of the Suez Canal to an Islamic. (blah, blah, blah)
Why should we stand by and allow others to effectuate change that is more than likely going to result in outcomes that are deleterious to US interests and security?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama might have called off Bush's Freedom agenda over in the MIddle East. But that just means he was not going be invading another country on that premise. The yearning for democracy in Egypt came from within. He was not about to discourage it. Just imagine if Obama was still oodling for Mubarack to stay??
If the Egyptian people have valid elections and they elect a pumpkin as a leader. Let it be. Does that mean we need to invade it? Walleye's obession with the Muslim brotherhood looks to me as a bit fanactical. What do you want to do about it? A military excursion in Egypt because of the possibility? Should we force in a despot who's under our thumb? (as if that would work.)
All this reminds me of Nicaragua in the'80's. Reagan was arming the contra's because the Republican's belief that a Cuban invasion of Latin America was forthcoming though the Sadinista's.
Guys, take a deep breath, get laid and stop watching FOX NEWS. (¨"We Report. We Decide.")
Military Care Taker Government Muslim Brotherhood and Oil
No matter how you spin it the 'Military Care Taker' government is nothing more or less than a military coup and there is no democratic government in place at this time. Egypt is now ruled by a Military Junta.
Moveon, Esten, here is a question for you. Who assassinated Egyptian President Sadat for making peace with Israel? Give up? The Muslin Brotherhood. After the assassination all members of the Muslim Brotherhood were purged from the military. To this day the military takes a dim view of the Muslim Brotherhood and will hopefully suppress them during any election. In case you don't recall the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for a style of government similar to Iran and not a representative democracy.
Why should we be concerned about the government in Egypt? As WW points out the Suez Canal is controlled by Egypt. Now take out your maps boys and girls and trace where much of the world's oil comes from and what canal it transits. If the Suez is shut down the tankers will have to make the run around the end of Africa which will add both time and cost to current oil deliveries. Since we are getting well into the mid $3's for gas what do you think will happen. Of course the price goes up and when that happens everything that is delivered with the US price will rise as well.
This might be a good thing in it might get Obama off his ass and let the US recover our own petroleum resources here at home.
As a Post Script, since Moveon and Esten are such ardent admirers of democracy what about the other half of the Egyptian population which are still treated as second class property (not even citizens) who may be killed or maimed at the male family members whim. You guys know who I’m talking about, women. How about the American female report who was “assaulted”, can we all say raped, by those stalwarts of democracy and freedom in Egypt!
Was Bush´s push for Democratic reforms a ruse in Iraq?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;415730]Moveon, What makes you think the Bush administration would have reacted any differently than Obama to what's happening in Egypt? The positions of Obama and Hillary Clinton on democracy in the Middle East aren't any different from positions of Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, with one exception. Unfortunately, Bush was willing to go to war, in part to try to prod along this process.[/QUOTE]Maybe, who knows?
But in retrospect, let's be completely candid:
If IRAQ did not contain an ounce of oil reserves but held just squabbling tribesman would Bush have invaded Iraq? Remember, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. There was no terrorist link what-so-ever.
Yeah, Saddam ws a ruthless dictator. But there were a lot of other ruthless dictators around the world as well, why not go after them?
So George W.´s real agenda was oil and the use of Halbitron thanks to Cheney. (no bid contracts, etc)
Democracy - one could say, was just a cover.
Sorry, I meant utterly clueless
[QUOTE=Moveon;415748]"Who cares?" Well, if you listened to Cheney and Rumsfeld, there was indeed a connection. Therefore, by invading iraq we were fighting Al Qaeda.[/quote]My 'who cares' was directed at your liberal baloney. Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in Iraq prior to the war and 2) Bush et al never stated that Iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties). Clearly, the Bush administration pushed the idea that we'd be fighting terrorism in Iraq. Please cite line and verse where either Cheney or Rummy, prior to our invasion of Iraq, made erroneous statements about Iraq and its terrorist connections. Not that you would know a fact from a fart.
Ever heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: it used to be called Mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the Millenium bombing attempts in the US and UK (1999) as well as the assasination of American diplomat, Laurence Foley (2002) , in Jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, I call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the Hole in the wall gang was called "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" which later was changed to al Qaeda-in-Iraq.
[quote=]Don't beleive me, look it up, clueless.[/quote]Why don't you try providing a fact or two for a change?
[quote=]"Kill all the bad guys?" You are so naive to think that we as a country can invade or ¨put boots on the ground¨whenever, wherever, we please.[/quote]Yep. However, I don't suggest we do it without a good reason. By the way, if we need a new place to go, I pick Libya, its got loads of oil and not that many inhabitants.
[quote=]And your obsession with the Muslim Brotherhood is typical of some so many neocons that led us to a disastrous war in Iraq.[/quote]Again with this 'obsession' language.
[quote=]What thappened in Indonesia way back when with this organization? When the dictator Suharto at the time got overthrown, how did that party do in the election?[/quote]Are you holding up Indonesia as shining example? Why, because it is Obama's birthplace?
[quote=]It's a secular country just like Egypt or Turkey.[/quote]Egypt now? Or a month ago? How about Egypt in 12 months? Turkey is a far better example. Hows that working out in terms of US interests? Better or worse?
[quote=]So put your John Wayne costume back in the closet, jerk.[/QUOTE]Again with your intolerance. I thought liberals were against forcing people back into the closet? What's next? Are you going to make women go to back alleys for abortions?
For Señor "Boots On The Ground"
[quote=wild walleye; 415750]my 'who cares' was directed at your liberal baloney. Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in iraq prior to the war and 2) bush et al never stated that iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties). Clearly, the bush administration pushed the idea that we'd be fighting terrorism in iraq. Please cite line and verse where either cheney or rummy, prior to our invasion of iraq, made erroneous statements about iraq and its terrorist connections. Not that you would know a fact from a fartC
@ Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, before we invaded it. What part of this do you not understand? Plus it was Cheney who, still to this day states Al Qaeda was flourishing in Iraq when Hussein was in power. Again, Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda-both did not trust each other.
Ever heard of abu musab al-zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: It used to be called mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the millenium bombing attempts in the us and uk (1999) as well as the assasination of american diplomat, laurence foley (2002) , in jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, i call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the hole in the wall gang was called "jama'at al-tawhid wal-jihad" which later was changed to al qaeda-in-iraq.
@ Sure, he had the opportunity in that country only after we invaded it.
Why don't you try providing a fact or two for a change?
Yep. However, i don't suggest we do it without a good reason. By the way, if we need a new place to go, i pick libya, its got loads of oil and not that many inhabitants.
@ Do go, please. Come to think of it, you would probably like the atmoshere there as well.
Again with this 'obsession' language.
@ Heck it was you that kept throwing it out there in your previous posts. I am just replying to it.
Are you holding up indonesia as shining example? Why, because it is obama's birthplace?
@ Because you know what i said is true. You can call it a shining example, if you like.
Egypt now? Or a month ago? How about egypt in 12 months? Turkey is a far better example. Hows that working out in terms of us interests? Better or worse?
@ What on earth is wrong with our relations with Turkey? Oh my God, you are really tripping.
It's disturbed neocons like yourself that feel that every country out there is of strategic importance to our freedom and existence and therefore we have a right to ¨put boots on the ground."
Mr. I don't know how to do a quote
Moreon:
I realize the likelihood of someone mistakenly attributing any of my brilliant analysis to you is extremely remote, however, if you wouldn't mind, please set off the material that you wish to quote with the proper syntax. Open a quote with '[ quote= ]' and end the quote with '[ /quote ]' (both without the quotation marks or spaces).
[QUOTE=Moveon;415754]Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, before we invaded it. What part of this do you not understand?[/quote]I don't understand why you are so obtuse and unwilling to accept the facts :
"Everyone, except you of course, knows two things: 1) terrorism (terrorists, state sponsorship, etc) existed in iraq prior to the war and 2) Bush et al never stated that iraq had anything to do with 911 (the usual red herring flung about by lefties)."
[quote=]Plus it was Cheney who, still to this day states Al Qaeda was flourishing in Iraq when Hussein was in power.[/quote]Clearly, there were elements in Iraq, prior to the initiation of rapid dominance in March 2003 (aka Shock and Awe) , that were sympathetic and / or related to al Qaeda. There is absolutely no question that terror elements existed in Iraq prior to Operation Desert Storm (1990) , let alone Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003).
[quote=]Again, Saddam Hussein did not trust Al Qaeda-both did not trust each other.[/quote]Well, that settles it then. I guess, since they both rely so heavily on the "honor system" that they couldn't do business together due to a lack of trust.
[quote=]Sure, he had the opportunity in that country only after we invaded it.[/quote]Please reread, in light of the historical refresher above (I. E. Op Iraqi Freedom started in March 2003) :
"Ever heard of abu musab al-zarqawi? Any idea where he moved in 2001 (hint: It used to be called mesopotamia)? Among other things he is believed to have been behind the millenium bombing attempts in the us and uk (1999) as well as the assasination of american diplomat, laurence foley (2002) , in jordan. You may call him a freedom fighter, I call him a terrorist and believe that we should do all in our power to assist him and his ilk in meeting their god. His version of the hole in the wall gang was called "jama'at al-tawhid wal-jihad" which later was changed to al qaeda-in-iraq."
[quote=]Do go, please. Come to think of it, you would probably like the atmoshere there as well.[/quote]Despite false scientific claims to the contrary, the composition of the atmosphere (don't forget the 'p') is generally the same, all over the world. It is just a little dryer in Tripoli. Our boots have been on that soil before. I seem to recall a song.
[quote=]Heck it was you that kept throwing it out there in your previous posts. I am just replying to it.[/quote]I think not. That is an example of transference.
[quote=]Because you know what i said is true. You can call it a shining example, if you like.[/quote]You said nothing. Therefore, I must conclude that nothing you say is true.
[quote=]What on earth is wrong with our relations with Turkey?[/quote]Simple question, are our relations, measured in terms of serving our best interests, better or worse, now?
[quote=]Oh my God,[/quote]Given your position on the lunatic left, I doubt you have one. If you do, good for you. I would venture to guess your deities are liberal fabrications.
[quote=]you are really tripping.[/quote]Not since I volunteered for the govt study.
[quote=]It's disturbed neocons like yourself[/quote]I am not a neocon, I am an old school conservative.
[quote=]that feel that every country out there is of strategic importance to our freedom and existence and therefore we have a right to ¨put boots on the ground."[/QUOTE]I don't think that every country is of direct strategic importance. If I did, I'd be supporting Monroe (some doctrine thingy he was fond of) and playing dominoes (theory, that is). It is pretty clear which countries are strategically important to us and which are of significant strategic import that if necessary, we should be willing to occupy or at least invade and secure our interests.
If we only went into Iraq for oil.
Then why the fuck are we paying market prices for Iraqi oil?
I said back then (2003) and I'll say it now. Regardless of why we went in, we should have immediately started garnishing Iraqi oil revenues until we were paid back 100% of the expense of the war plus interest (average US treasury 10 year note) plus inflation adjustments and compensation for each American casualty (wounded, KIA and MIA) or his / her estate. We are doing none of that. We are footing the entire bill, excluding the de minimis financial contributions from our allies (in no way meant to belittle our allies' wounded and KIAs) and have borne the highest casualties.
Further, regardless of which Bush camp one was in (Powell / Rice or Rummy) all knew that invading Iraq would drive up oil prices and would likely result in a prolonged interruption to Iraq's oil production capability. It was no secret that Saddam intended to practice scorched earth once in retreat.
So we went in knowing that we would reduce oil supply and increase oil prices which in turn would drive up the cost of all most everything we use or consume on a daily basis (inflationary) which in turn reduces the value of each dollar held by the individual, all of which typically cause economic harm.
So tell me again, how was it just about oil?
Hopelessness and cluelessness
[QUOTE=Esten;415758]If you allow citizens to own firearms, some of them rob, shoot and kill people. Happens every day.[/quote]Please don't let ignorance prevent you from 'contributing' your poorly developed positions.
Rarely do the rightful owners of legally-possessed fire arms commit crimes with them. Anything to the contrary is more liberal gibberish. However, please feel free to provide statistical evidence stating the contrary. Maybe Gini did a study on gun ownership.
During the 80s and 90s homicide rates increased (most via GSWs) at the same time overall gun ownership in America was experiencing a significant decrease (from close to 50% in the 70s and early 80s to approximately 36% in 2004). The increased homicide rates were mostly due to young (18-24yrs old) black and Hispanic inner-city males involved in the drug trade and gangs. Please don't waste your breath on saying the preceding is racist, it is not an opinion it is fact. It is also a fact that most gang bangers and drug traffickers do not feel compelled to legally acquire or register their firearms or use them in a manner consistent with the law.
Criminologist Gary Kleck compared various survey and proxy measures and found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence.
How about this from Wikipedia citing various studies:
'People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime."
So it also seems to be true that bad guys have a much higher incidence of being shot than good guys. Works for me.
[quote=]Violent crime also tends to increase with greater inequality.[/quote]Bull shit! Violent crime is closely correlated with employment and economic growth, not income inequality. The fact that more crime is committed by poor individuals is not unique to America or countries with liberal gun ownership policies.
[quote=]The destructive synergy of (largely) conservative ideologies is remarkable.[/quote]The ignorance and arrogance of the Left is even more remarkable.
[quote=]Another one liner! And one which once again makes no sense.[/quote]It certainly does. The fact that you don't get it speaks volumes.
[quote=]Most crimes involving guns are not aimed at the government.[/quote]Careful, I think you might have stumbled into stating something that is factual.
[quote=]Unless you believe guns served a useful purpose in the shootings of Kennedy, Reagan, Giffords and other elected politicians.[/quote]Stupid comment, standard ad hominem liberal BS.
[quote=]It was the Bush presidency that led us into the Great Recession.[/quote]We all know that Bush was president going in. His policies did not led us in to the GR.
[quote=]It is the Obama presidency that has led us out of it.[/quote]Other than you, I don't know anyone who thinks we are out of it. However, I agree that wherever we are, Obama led us here.
[quote=]That's what happened and how it will be recorded in history.[/quote]The main stream media records it like you see it on a daily basis. Why doesn't America believe it? 'cause it ain't true.
[quote=]Now, Bush would have been just a mere failure based on the underperformance of real income and poverty metrics, after tax cuts which were supposed to bring prosperity to everyone.[/quote]I am afraid that is unintelligible.
[quote=]Of course, his presidency became a disaster as the financial crisis unfolded. It has been determined that de-regulation and lax regulatory oversight were major contributers to the crisis.[/quote]Determined by the same people who 'proved' anthropogenic global warming is turning the planet into a fiery ball of death and that the 'science' is settled and no further debate should be allowed?
[quote=]But it became an epic disaster when the crisis led to a deep recession with near 10% unemployment, with the legacy of Bush policies (wars, tax cuts) and the economic downturn driving huge federal deficits.[/quote]How is it that Obama triples that national debt and you have a bone to pick with Bush?
[quote=]It is truly astounding, the damage conservative ideology has caused to the country.[/QUOTE]It is truly astounding that you can get yourself around town, given this discontinuity of your cognitive functions.
One of the most Moreonic posts
[QUOTE=Moveon;415748]Are you stating all Defense Contracts of that magnitude are "no bid?" [/QUOTE]Why put the qualifier "all" into your response? You are without a doubt completely void of intellectual honesty.
F-ing brilliant and poignant
[QUOTE=Moveon;415664]Wow, what a selective memory from our friends on the right![/quote]Blah, blah, blah.
[quote=]No one on the right talks about Qaddafi and Libya.[/quote]Don't forget Obama, 'leader' of the free world who has been silent on the subject of Libya for 9 days. What leadership. I wonder what he will do with the revelations that Muammar personally ordered the Lockerbie attack or that he allowed al Qaeda to set up an emirate in Libya.
If I worked in an aspirin factory, I would have some serious pucker factor right now.
